| Related
Articles
Other |
Poetic
Features of the Parable Charles W. Hedrick
Following the tradition of Aristotle, one can examine the poetic style of the parable. He would identify each "period" (complete thought) and its various clauses. Such a division provides a structural order for evaluating the prosodic quality (i.e., its rhythm, rhyme, assonance, consonance) of the story. The structure of this narrative reveals that it is about four men. It reveals a clear design to focus attention on the behavior of the fourth man (the Samaritan). The surprising good will of the fourth man suddenly reverses an expected tragic ending.
Following the tradition of Aristotle, one can examine the poetic style of the story by identifying each "period" (complete thought) and its various clauses. Such a division will provide a structural arrangement for evaluating the prosodic quality (i.e., its rhythm, rhyme, assonance, consonance) of the story. The narrative can reasonably be broken down into five periods of various clauses each. Period I: 1. A certain fellow went down from Jerusalem to Jericho 2. and he fell among thieves, 3. who, both stripping and beating him, departed leaving (him) half dead. Period II: 1. Now by chance a certain priest went down that road 2. and seeing him, skirted by on the other side; Period III: 1. and likewise, a Levite also coming to the place 2. and looking, skirted by on the other side. Period IV: 1. But a certain traveling Samaritan came to him 2. and seeing was moved to compassion, 3. and coming (to him) he treated his wounds, 4. pouring oil and wine (on them), 5. and putting him on his own pack animal 6. he brought him to an inn 7. and cared for him. Period V: 1. And the next morning 2. taking out two denarii he gave (them) to the innkeeper 3. and said, "Whatever more you spend 4. when I return I will pay you." As one can see from the way this narrative about four men is structured, it is clearly designed to focus attention on the behavior of the fourth man. There is a close parallel in brief description, similar form, and even in verbal identity between periods I-III and the first two clauses of period IV. Such spare language is followed by the unexpected and unusual elaboration (in comparison to the first four periods) of the behavior of the fourth man. This throws the focus of the story onto the fourth man. Periods I.1-IV.2 prepare the reader for the climax of the story reached in periods IV.3-V.4. Based on form and structure, what is significant about the story is what the fourth man does. Most of period IV and all of period V are devoted to his activity. That amounts to about half of the story. Periods IV.3-V.4 provide clarification of what it means in this story to "have compassion." Until this point the story has been spiraling downward toward disaster, but the unexpected compassion of the fourth man suddenly reverses an expected tragic conclusion. This surprising good will of the fourth man toward the victim of the robbery stands in stark contrast to the particular viciousness of the thieves and the unconscionable behavior of the second and third men, who scarcely seemed to give the first man a second thought. The benevolence of the fourth man is so outlandish as to challenge any compromise that readers may have made between their own acts of kindness/charity and the human need that always exists on every side.
The following approach to the text of the parable of the Good Samaritan follows the conventions of Aristotle in analyzing two aspects of a created fiction: its style (i.e., form and rhythm) and its sound (i.e., assonance repetition of vowel sounds, consonance repetition of consonantal sounds, and rhyme). Aristotle (Rhetorica 3.9) analyzed a writer’s style (levxi") in terms of "periods" (i.e., sentences) and clauses (a part of a sentence). He also emphasized the value of the aural features (i.e., sounds received by the ear) of a text and noted that the writing should have a certain "rhythm" (rJuqmov", Rhetorica 3.8). He regarded texts that employed such features as being "pleasant" and "easy to learn," i.e., easy to be retained in memory. Following Aristotle, I am examining the levxi" of the story by identifying each perivodo" (period=sentence=complete thought) in terms of its various kw'la (clauses=a part of a period=dependent clause or phrase). Such a division will provide a structural arrangement for evaluating the prosodic quality (i.e., its rhythm, rhyme, assonance, consonance) of the story. My analysis is limited to the story in Luke 10.30b–35. I am not considering its literary setting in the Gospel of Luke ( 10.25–30a, 36–37). The story is a segment complete in itself (i.e., it has a beginning, middle, and end), and if any part of Luke 10.25–37 may have existed as oral tradition, it is my assumption that it would have been the story. Luke’s story of the Samaritan is the only extant version of the narrative. Hence, there exist no other versions for comparison and critique, as is the case with certain other of the stories attributed to Jesus of Nazareth. As I analyze the narrative, it can reasonably be broken down into five periods of various clauses each. In this case Luke has no appended summary "meaning," which would have also been excluded from the poetic analysis. Period I: 1. [Anqrwpov" ti" katevbainen ajpo; jIerousalh;m eij" jIericw; 2. kai; lh/stai'" perievpesen, 3. oi} kai; ejkduvsante" aujto;n kai; plhga;" ejpiqevnte" ajph'lqon ajfevnte" hJmiqanh'. Period II: 1. kata; sugkurivan de; iJereuv" ti" katevbainen ejn th'/ oJdw/' ejkeivnh/ 2. kai; ijdw;n aujto;n ajntiparh'lqen. Period III: 1. oJmoivw" de; kai; Leuivth" [genovmeno"] kata; to;n tovpon ejlqw;n 2. kai; ijdw;n ajntiparh'lqen. Period IV: 1. Samarivth" dev ti" oJdeuvwn h\lqen kat j aujto;n 2. kai; ijdw;n ejsplagcnivsqh, 3. kai; proselqw;n katevdhsen ta; trauvmata aujtou' 4. ejpicevwn e[laion kai; oi\non, 5. ejpibibavsa" de; aujto;n ejpi; to; i[dion kth'no" 6. h[gagen aujto;n eij" pandocei'on 7. kai; ejpemelhvqh aujtou'. Period V: 1. kai; ejpi; th;n au[rion 2. ejkbalw;n e[dwken duvo dhnavria tw'/ pandocei' 3. kai; ei\pen, jEpimelhvqhti aujtou', 4. kai; o{ ti a]n prosdapanhvsh/" 5. ejgw; ejn tw'/ ejpanevrcesqaiv me ajpodwvsw soi.
The following translation (formal equivalence) of the story is intended to demonstrate its various periods and clauses for persons who do not read Greek. Period I: 1. A certain fellow went down from Jerusalem to Jericho 2. and he fell among thieves, 3. who, both stripping and beating him, departed leaving (him) half dead. Period II: 1. Now by chance a certain priest went down that road 2. and seeing him, skirted by on the other side; Period III: 1. and likewise, a Levite also coming to the place 2. and looking, skirted by on the other side. Period IV: 1. But a certain traveling Samaritan came to him 2. and seeing was moved to compassion, 3. and coming (to him) he treated his wounds, 4. pouring oil and wine (on them), 5. and putting him on his own pack animal 6. he brought him to an inn 7. and cared for him. Period V: 1. And the next morning 2. taking out two denarii he gave (them) to the innkeeper 3. and said, "Whatever more you spend 4. when I return I will pay you." One notes immediately the balance and verbal similarity that exist between periods I-IV: I.3 kai; ejkduvsante" aujto;n plhga;" ejpiqevnte" ajph'lqon ajfevnte" hJmiqanh' II.2 kai ijdw;n aujto;n ajntiparh'lqen III.2 kai; ijdw;n ajntiparh'lqen IV.2 kai; ijdw;n ejsplagcnivsqh Note also the similarity in the way the subjects of periods I.1–IV.2 are expressed: I.1 a[nqrwpov" ti" II.1 iJereuv" ti" III.1 Leuivth" [ti" is evoked by oJmoivw" de; kai; at the beginning of the period.] IV.1 Samarivth"… ti" This kind of structuring of the narrative tends to set off periods I.1-IV.2 as a cohesive unit. There are a few euphonic phrases in the story, but nothing to compare with what is found, for example, in the story of the Leaven ( Matt 13.33= Luke 13.21), where there is extensive use of assonance and consonance in a brief story of only thirteen words: I.1 jIerousalh;m eij" jIericw; (the first three letters of the city names) I.3 ejpiqevnte"...ajfevnte" III.1/2 kata; to;n tovpon ejlqw;n/ kai; ijdw;n IV.1/2 oJdeuvwn...kat j aujto;n/ kai; ijdw;n IV.3/4 proselqw;n.../ ejpicevwn e[laion kai; oi\non IV.5/6 aujto;n ejpi; to; i[dion.../...aujto;n eij" pandocei'on As one can see from the way this narrative about four men is structured, it is clearly designed to focus attention on the behavior of the fourth man. The close parallel in economy of description, in similarity of form, and even in verbal identity between periods I–III and the first two clauses of period IV, followed by the unexpected and unusual elaboration (in comparison to the first four periods) of the behavior of the fourth man throws the focus of the story onto the fourth man’s behavior. Periods I.1–IV.2 prepare the reader for the climax of the story reached in periods IV.3–V.4. On the basis of form and structure, what is significant about the story is what the fourth man does. Most of period IV and all of period V are devoted to his activity. That amounts to about half of the story. The first half of the story ends with IV.2: kai; ijdw;n ejsplagcnivsqh. Periods IV.3–V.5 provide clarification of what it means in this story to "have compassion." Until this point the story has been spiraling downward toward disaster, but the unexpected compassion of the fourth man suddenly reverses an expected tragic conclusion. One should not pass quickly over the story’s ending: the fourth man gives the innkeeper a blank check to care for the injured man. This surprising benevolence of the fourth man toward the poor unfortunate victim of the robbery stands in stark contrast to the particular viciousness of the thieves (stripped him and then beat him, leaving him almost dead) and the unconscionable behavior of the second and third men (skirted by on the other side of the road—leaving him either dead or almost dead), who scarcely seemed to give the first man a second thought (glancing and hurrying away). It makes readers wonder where to situate themselves in this story. Many readers are keenly aware that they have always been the man beside the road in the sense that they are usually the recipient of the kindness or the meanness of others. Occasionally they may have been a second or a third man in the sense that they have failed to respond in a gracious way to others. But the benevolence of the fourth man is so outlandish as to challenge any compromise that readers may have made between their own acts of kindness/charity and the human need that always exists on every side. Would anyone ever claim to have been a Samaritan as he is portrayed in this narrative? |